We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Partners Jacques Smith and David Greenberg spoke with AHLA Weekly after the US Supreme Court heard oral argument on April 19 in a major False Claims Act case that has far-reaching implications for the health care industry and other highly-regulated sectors reliant on government funding.

“We expect the Supreme Court’s decision in Universal Health to be pivotal for the health care industry, with it likely serving as a bellwether case that has significant impact on False Claims Act litigation for decades to come,” said Jacques.

AHLA reported that the questions from the justices generally focused on where to draw the line for implied certification before a claim for payment is false under the FCA.

“At oral argument, the Justices wrestled over whether the Supreme Court should limit the implied certification theory and how one determines whether violation of a regulation or contract provision is ‘material’ for the purposes of triggering liability under the False Claims Act,” said David. “The outcome of this case may turn on whether the Supreme Court decides to heighten the False Claims Act materiality standard, requiring a plaintiff prove the defendant knew that compliance with the particular statute, regulation, or contract provision was required to receive government payment.”

Related topic hubs

Compare jurisdictions: Arbitration

“The new ACC Newsstand is one of the best e-resources that I have encountered in 21 years of practicing Employment Law. The information is timely, helpful and easy to navigate. Thank you for offering it and please continue it indefinitely!!”